Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban

TheMercenary · 03-09-2007, 08:02 PM

By BRETT ZONGKER Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long- standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.
In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia.

The ban on owning handguns went into effect in 1976.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also threw out the district's requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock.

In 2004, a lower-court judge told six city residents that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.

"The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow," Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."

Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.

The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

"I think this is well positioned for review of the Supreme Court," said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University. He said the D.C. circuit is historically influential with the Supreme Court because it often deals with constitutional questions.

"You also have a very well-reasoned opinion, both in the majority and the dissent," Turley said.

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope.

Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still "subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."

Such restrictions might include gun registration, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said the decision gives the district "a crack in the door to join the rest of the country in full constitutional freedom."

A spokeswoman for the district attorney general's office declined to comment on the ruling.

bluecuracao · 03-09-2007, 08:10 PM

Could statehood be next?

TheMercenary · 03-09-2007, 08:16 PM

I don't know about statehood but they sure need to give them a voting voice in Congress. There is a butt load of people who live there that are not represented, and last I checked they are still paying taxes. Taxation without representation?

Happy Monkey · 03-09-2007, 08:18 PM

That's what my license plates say.

Beestie · 03-09-2007, 08:24 PM

Well I guess HM and I will find out which one of us was/is right about the relationship between gun ownership rights and gun crime.

I wonder if New York is next.

Beestie · 03-09-2007, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That's what my license plates say.

In light of the recent court decision perhaps DC can consider changing the plate slogan to: Now enjoying 85% of the Constitutional Rights enjoyed by the other 50 states. But cross out the 85 and handwrite in 100.

Happy Monkey · 03-09-2007, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beestie

Well I guess HM and I will find out which one of us was/is right about the relationship between gun ownership rights and gun crime.

I wonder if New York is next.

Well, the biggest segment of "gun crime" will go way down- "possession".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beestie

In light of the recent court decision perhaps DC can consider changing the plate slogan to: Now enjoying 85% of the Constitutional Rights enjoyed by the other 50 states. But cross out the 85 and handwrite in 100.

No, there'll still be taxation without representation.

bluecuracao · 03-09-2007, 08:47 PM

Yup, I think there are a quite a few otherwise law-abiding citizens in DC who already own guns, so maybe it won't make a difference. But the other thing to consider is that DC has a disproportionate number of stressed-out assholes, who may not yet own guns. This could be exciting.

Beestie · 03-09-2007, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Well, the biggest segment of "gun crime" will go way down- "possession".No, there'll still be taxation without representation.

So was having the right of gun ownership withheld one of the problems of taxation without representation or one of the benefits?

monster · 03-09-2007, 09:03 PM

(aliens are taxed but not allowed to vote)

TheMercenary · 03-09-2007, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monster

(aliens are taxed but not allowed to vote)

I have no problem with that. They should double tax them.

TheMercenary · 03-09-2007, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beestie

Well I guess HM and I will find out which one of us was/is right about the relationship between gun ownership rights and gun crime.

I wonder if New York is next.

Oh please enlighten me. I am a gun owner and have a CCW permit for my state.

Beestie · 03-09-2007, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Oh please enlighten me. I am a gun owner and have a CCW permit for my state.

Enlighten you with respect to what?

bluecuracao · 03-09-2007, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I have no problem with that. They should double tax them.

Sure. They will need the dough to pay you to do...something, Monsieur Mercenary.

Happy Monkey · 03-09-2007, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beestie

So was having the right of gun ownership withheld one of the problems of taxation without representation or one of the benefits?

Neither. Unrelated issues.

03-09-2007, 08:02 PM	#1
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban By BRETT ZONGKER Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long- standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias. In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia. The ban on owning handguns went into effect in 1976. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also threw out the district's requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock. In 2004, a lower-court judge told six city residents that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection. "The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow," Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense." Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state. The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue. "I think this is well positioned for review of the Supreme Court," said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University. He said the D.C. circuit is historically influential with the Supreme Court because it often deals with constitutional questions. "You also have a very well-reasoned opinion, both in the majority and the dissent," Turley said. If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope. Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still "subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment." Such restrictions might include gun registration, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said the decision gives the district "a crack in the door to join the rest of the country in full constitutional freedom." A spokeswoman for the district attorney general's office declined to comment on the ruling.

03-09-2007, 08:18 PM	#4
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	That's what my license plates say. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

03-09-2007, 08:24 PM	#5
Beestie -◊\|≡·∙■·∙≡\|◊- Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Parts unknown. Posts: 4,081	Well I guess HM and I will find out which one of us was/is right about the relationship between gun ownership rights and gun crime. I wonder if New York is next. __________________ ♠ ♥ ♣ ♦

03-09-2007, 09:03 PM	#10
monster I hear them call the tide Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Perpetual Chaos Posts: 30,852	(aliens are taxed but not allowed to vote) __________________ The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity Amelia Earhart

03-09-2007, 08:10 PM	#2
bluecuracao in a mood, not cupcake Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 3,034	Could statehood be next?

03-09-2007, 08:16 PM	#3
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	I don't know about statehood but they sure need to give them a voting voice in Congress. There is a butt load of people who live there that are not represented, and last I checked they are still paying taxes. Taxation without representation?

03-09-2007, 08:47 PM	#8
bluecuracao in a mood, not cupcake Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 3,034	Yup, I think there are a quite a few otherwise law-abiding citizens in DC who already own guns, so maybe it won't make a difference. But the other thing to consider is that DC has a disproportionate number of stressed-out assholes, who may not yet own guns. This could be exciting.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)